Case 2501499/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Derham v Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501499/2023
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Derham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Buckley decided a preliminary issue at Newcastle by CVP on 26 October 2023. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The judgment records claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, redundancy payment, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal found that all of those claims had been presented outside the relevant time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider any of the claimant's claims.
All claims were struck out. The judgment records no monetary award or remedy. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the relevant time limit, that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the unlawful deductions from wages claim was presented outside the relevant time limit, that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the redundancy payment claim was presented outside the relevant time limit, that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract claim for notice pay. It was presented outside the relevant time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as an unpaid holiday pay claim. It was presented outside the relevant time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.